Was there a shallow wound in JFK's back

[burgundy]

This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."

What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
dissected the problems of the Warren Report.

There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
discussion and clarification.

Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

"This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."

Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
shoulder.'"

On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
claim that?

Burgundy

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said there was no back wound? Do you mean Lifton's theory? I can't
even remember the last time Lifton posted here.

[bigdog]

On Dec 3, 12:17 am, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>
> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>

You mean, one of the earliest attempts at mangling the evidence.

> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
> discussion and clarification.
>
> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>
> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>
> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
> shoulder.'"
>
> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
> claim that?
>

Who has said the wound never existed? Most people, including many if
not a majority of CTs believe the bullet went clean through JFK from
back to front. The autopsy team was perplexed because they had no
bullets in the body but thought there was only a single bullet wound
in the torso. They were unaware of two key facts. One is that there
had been a bullet hole in JFK's throat that Dr. Perry had performed a
tracheotomy over, disguising the original nature of the wound. The
other is that JFK had been hit with his right arm elevated which
changes the position of the muscles. Had they known this and
positioned JFK's right arm accordingly, that may well have reopened
the bullet channel, although swelling in the wound might have still
made the probe difficult.

What you are describing are the early impressions of the autopsy team.
It was later on they began to suspect the tracheotomy had been
peformed over a bullet wound. They confirmed that later on in
conversations with Dr. Perry.

[claviger]

Burgundy,

Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
small puncture wounds in the face.

The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
penetration through-and-through wounds. It was a highly stable bullet
by design. If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle. It had ample
velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
expansion of the wound cavity. It's length-to-width ratio prevented
tumbling. The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
enemy soldiers. It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm". For
this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President. Not
impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.

[burgundy]

Unless I misuderstood his comment Jas wrote on the other thread:

> > On Nov 29, 8:10 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.
> The shallow wound is real.


Sorry, it's not real. The track follows through to the anterior neck exit
wound, and in fact there's an x-ray of JFK's torso showing a faint wound
track. It's hard to see because the bullet didn't leave any fragments.

[wgroom]

On Dec 3, 12:17 am, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:

What one won't find is the escaping back wound bullet/fragment that
has persisted throughout the years.

Here's Jerome Custer's synopsis:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcusterJ.htm

I think there were a few more that corroborated that as well...

wg

[burgundy]

The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
up.

[John Canal]

In article <b6074849-0acc-415c...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...

>
>On Dec 2, 11:17=A0pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other

>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evenin=
>g
>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah'=

>s
>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>
>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>
>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
>> discussion and clarification.
>>

>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "Durin=

>g
>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>
>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing

>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distanc=

>e
>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>
>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton

>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling it=

>s
>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three

>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or secon=

Please consider this.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9608/z312trajectorywithangel.jpg

If anyone thinks it's a coincidence that in this graphic the near EOP
entry, the agreed upon principal exit (identified by Angel as being just
forward of the coronal suture near the Stepanion process--see inserted
graphic, Angel's dwg), and the points of contact to the windshield trim
and glass line up, well...let's just say they have a different theory
about the head shot than I do...which is no big deal...because just about
everyone here does.

:-)

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Canal]

In article <f06dcdd4-63ea-4780...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog says...

>
>On Dec 3, 12:17=A0am, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other

>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evenin=
>g
>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah'=

>s
>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>
>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>
>You mean, one of the earliest attempts at mangling the evidence.
>
>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
>> discussion and clarification.
>>

>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "Durin=

>g
>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>
>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing

>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distanc=

>e
>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>
>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton

>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling it=

>s
>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three

>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or secon=

>d
>> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
>> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
>> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
>> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
>> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
>> shoulder.'"
>>
>> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
>> claim that?
>>
>Who has said the wound never existed? Most people, including many if
>not a majority of CTs believe the bullet went clean through JFK from
>back to front. The autopsy team was perplexed because they had no
>bullets in the body but thought there was only a single bullet wound
>in the torso. They were unaware of two key facts. One is that there
>had been a bullet hole in JFK's throat that Dr. Perry had performed a
>tracheotomy over, disguising the original nature of the wound.

Just consider the possibility they, in spite of what they said early on,
knew about the throat wound before the body even arrived. If they didn't
that'd mean that they (1) hadn't seen the clothes (I assure you they
actually did, and the clothes were proof the bullet exited the throat),
(2) hadn't heard about the announcements (before the body arrived) at the
PH news conference or on the national televised news that a bullet entered
JFK's throat and exited at the base of his neck on his backside....or (3)
hadn't heard anything about a tracheostomy from Burkley who was in
Parkland Hospital's TR1 and (according to him and Boswell) supervised the
autopsy.

Humes gives it away in his testimony (not the ARRB, Marsh) that they, at
the very latest, knew the bullet exited the throat that night.

Boswell and Finck also stated later on that they knew about the throat
wound and that the bullet transited that night.

If you like Marsh and just about every one else that's familiar with this
case thinks I've gone bonkers, I suggest you save yourself some time and
stop reading now.

If that's the case, bye.

If not....

So why did Humes et. al lie, Claviger?

Ok, so I'm a LN/CT nut with, as Marsh likes to put it, wacky
theories...but, nonetheless, this is what I've come up with after about 11
years of studying the medical evidence.

In the anatomical erect position the back wound appeared to Burkley and
the autopsists to be even with or even a little lower than the throat
wound. Because they had no clue that JFK had been leaning forward
dramatically, they feared the shot had been fired by a near ground level
shooter.

Making decisions tougher that night, and I know, this gets crazier...but
there indeed was a larger "exit-LIKE" wound (besides the entry) in the
back of his head....so to them--at that time--JFK's wounds were hardly
consistent with one assassin firing all the shots from behind and six
floors up.

I said it gets crazier and I meant it. The last thing Burkley and the
autopsists thought they should do was announce that night that JFK's
wounds appeared to be evidence of a multiple shooter attack.

BTW, I was in the Air Force at the time and just about every one was
scared to death that the possibility existed there had been a conspiracy
to assassinate JFK....even one orchestrated by the Soviets. B-52s were in
the air or on alert, and our Minuteman missile crews and Polaris
submarines were on alert. Our readiness status was at its highest level.

So, in the nation's best interest, they [Burkley and the autopsists] led
the FBI to think the back bullet didn't penetrate. Silly suggestions of an
ice bullet or that the bullet penetrated only an inch or two were made
just for the FBI to absorb. When they left the first leaks about JFK's
wounds, albeit purposely false ones, had been unleashed....for J. Edar
Hoover and whomever he chose to pass that disinformation on to.

Later they had been given the go-ahead to report what they did...that they
found out about the tracheostomy over a bullet wound the next AM....but
note that Perry at first said he talked to Humes Friday....that was until
Specter put him in a hammerlock [just kidding] and convinced him that
phone call that he [Perry] would never forget was Saturday AM, not Friday.

:-)

That's why the JFK medical evidence has been a shambles and so
controversial all these years.

Think about all the evidence that the bullet transited. Setting aside the
clothes, there was air in the tissue (shows on the X-rays), debris around
the C7/T1 transverse process, a possible fracture there (both show on the
X-rays), bruising of the apex of the pleura and lung ("Y" section), a nick
to the right side of the trachea, a hematoma to the right side of his
larynx, and bruising to the muscles on the right around the tracheostomy
incision.

It's important to note that they knew there was no bruising around the
cut-down and chest incisions (for the I.V.s and chest tubes--that were
never actually inserted) intentionally made by the PH docs because they
were made when his heart ahd all but stopped.........but the bruising to
the larynx and strap muscles had to have been caused when he was still
alive....IOW, when he was shot.

Claviger, I'll not post this much again (and I assure you there's much
more to support what I've proposed)....because I'm tired of being called
or receiving implications that I'm a nut..........so, for those who do
chose to think I'm a CT/LN nut with wild and wacky theories, go for
it.....when (that will probably come after my time) the medical evidence
is re-examined by an UNBIASED (NOT ASSOCIATES OF ONE ANOTHER) and
qualified team of forensic experts we'll see who was right.

:-)

John Canal


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

Not according to Humes. He said it fell out during cardiac massage.

> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets

Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
Parkland Hospital.

> showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
> of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
> small puncture wounds in the face.
>

There were no small puncture wounds in the face. If you claim there were
then show them to me in the autopsy photos. Dead Silence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but you also left out the key third factor. The autopsy team was
not allowed to examine the President's clothing.

[John Canal]

Where I wrote: "......or (3) hadn't heard anything about a tracheostomy
from Burkley who...."

I meant to write: "......or (3) hadn't heard anything about a tracheostomy
over a bullet wound from Burkley who...."

Sorry.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

If it stays on a straight line.

[Anthony Marsh]

All idle speculation.

> Humes gives it away in his testimony (not the ARRB, Marsh) that they, at
> the very latest, knew the bullet exited the throat that night.
>

Quote please.

> Boswell and Finck also stated later on that they knew about the throat
> wound and that the bullet transited that night.
>

Later on?

Oh, so it was a benign conspiracy as Hosty said?

> the FBI to think the back bullet didn't penetrate. Silly suggestions of an

Silly. Even if it was a shallow wound it still penetrated his back. What
you mean is it didn't exit.

> ice bullet or that the bullet penetrated only an inch or two were made
> just for the FBI to absorb. When they left the first leaks about JFK's

And yet you claim that FBI wasn't even in the room to hear him saying that.
Make up your mind in order to keep your wacky theories consistent.

> wounds, albeit purposely false ones, had been unleashed....for J. Edar
> Hoover and whomever he chose to pass that disinformation on to.
>
> Later they had been given the go-ahead to report what they did...that they
> found out about the tracheostomy over a bullet wound the next AM....but
> note that Perry at first said he talked to Humes Friday....that was until
> Specter put him in a hammerlock [just kidding] and convinced him that
> phone call that he [Perry] would never forget was Saturday AM, not Friday.
>
> :-)

So the whole autopsy was a charade?

[bigdog]

> up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound.

[Anthony Marsh]

Two major problems. First, how does your bullet change direction and
break up when it hits the skull? Can you duplicate that?
You used the exit on the coronal suture, but why did you throw out the
exit Angel saw on the forehead?

[claviger]

I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body
for a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a
closed casket ceremony instead. They saw the body up close. You
didn't.

[John Canal]

In article <4edb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

There are no problems, especially major ones...only the ones that your CT
mind wishes existed.

>First, how does your bullet change direction and
>break up when it hits the skull?

You don't think the head shot bullet fragmented? If you admit it did (and
it's like pulling teeth to get you to admit the obvious), when do
***YOU*** think it started to break up....if it didn't when it hit the
skull.....the soft cerebrum? Get serious.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that it did what the grahic suggests....at
least to those who understand the evidence....and admit that the circular
defect below the ruler and centered in F8 (which is titled, "missile wound
in posterior skull...") is the entry and not a "spot" (Marsh) or birth
defect or whatever (McAdams, and sadly even Paul Seaton).

Note also that the channel-like, through and through laceration through
the brain is consistent with the track shown in the graphic. From the tip
of the occipital lobe, through a point just above the Thalamus, to and out
the tip of the occipital lobe.

>Can you duplicate that?

Do you want to volunteer as a stand in for JFK?

:-)

>You used the exit on the coronal suture, but why did you throw out the
>exit Angel saw on the forehead?

Because, (1) duh, the autopsists never mentioned your mythical exit on the
forehead...and...they saw the body, not just a photo...repeat
duh....and...

(2) It only "looks like" a bullet wound in the full F8 photo, which is why
some including Angel and even Sturdivan, Artwohl, and Baden got it
confused....assuming it was an "exit" (not an "entry" like you like to
think). That said the enlargement clearly shows it's not a bullet
wound...which is why Humes never mentioned it.

(3) There was no metallic residue noted around that whatever on his
forehead...like there was around the partial perimeter of the real,
principal exit just foreward of the coronal suture.

And lastly (4), they extrapolated using the partial circumference of the
real exit and approximated the diameter of the complete hole would have
been 2.5 cm. From that they determined (because of the size of the
fragment/s needed to cause an exit of that diameter) that it was the
"principal" exit and that no other signifiant exit could have existed.

It all makes sense Marsh, when you try to put the pieces together logially
and not to fit a wacky five shot multiple shooter scenario.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/4/2011 2:51 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4edb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You talking to me? You must be because no one else will talk to you. Of
course I think the bullet fragmented the moment it hit. But my bullet is
not the same as your bullet. You bullet is a FMJ Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
hitting the back of the head somewhere, although you're not sure where or
at least we can't get you to stick with one theory for more than a half
hour.

Your bullet came from the TSBD and that type of bullet could not possibly
fragment into dozens of dustlike fragments. My bullet from the right front
is an explosive bullet which is designed to explode into dozens of
dustlike fragments.

> Anyway, it's pretty obvious that it did what the grahic suggests....at
> least to those who understand the evidence....and admit that the circular

Poisoning the Well. The only thing you have is your phony Argument by
Authority, but you are not an authority on anything.

> defect below the ruler and centered in F8 (which is titled, "missile wound
> in posterior skull...") is the entry and not a "spot" (Marsh) or birth
> defect or whatever (McAdams, and sadly even Paul Seaton).
>
> Note also that the channel-like, through and through laceration through
> the brain is consistent with the track shown in the graphic. From the tip
> of the occipital lobe, through a point just above the Thalamus, to and out
> the tip of the occipital lobe.
>
>> Can you duplicate that?
>
> Do you want to volunteer as a stand in for JFK?
>

Folks, look at the tricks he uses to evade the question. He separates the
one question from the paragraph because he knows that he can not duplicate
what he says happened. He doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano and he's
afraid of guns. He has no way to do any real tests the way Lattimer did.

> :-)
>
>> You used the exit on the coronal suture, but why did you throw out the
>> exit Angel saw on the forehead?
>
> Because, (1) duh, the autopsists never mentioned your mythical exit on the
> forehead...and...they saw the body, not just a photo...repeat
> duh....and...
>

My wound in the forehead is not an exit. My wound in the forehead is the
entrance.

Dr. Lawrence Angel said the semi-circular defect in the forehead was AN
exit point. You won't even admit that it exists and claim you can't see it
so therefore the autopsy doctors couldn't see it either. So what do you do
to invalidate Dr. Angel? Do you need to call him incompetent. Or a
conspiracy kook? How do you make him go away? As for seeing the body, the
autopsy doctors saw a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline
and just assumed it was an entrance wound. They did not see the bullet
wound in the throat. Incompetent. A janitor would have done a better job.

> (2) It only "looks like" a bullet wound in the full F8 photo, which is why
> some including Angel and even Sturdivan, Artwohl, and Baden got it
> confused....assuming it was an "exit" (not an "entry" like you like to
> think). That said the enlargement clearly shows it's not a bullet
> wound...which is why Humes never mentioned it.
>

Wrong. You can't get away with calling the top forensic pathologists in
the world incompetent while you praise Humes as being perfect.

> (3) There was no metallic residue noted around that whatever on his
> forehead...like there was around the partial perimeter of the real,
> principal exit just foreward of the coronal suture.
>

Maybe because it wasn't an exit. I said it was an entrance.

> And lastly (4), they extrapolated using the partial circumference of the
> real exit and approximated the diameter of the complete hole would have
> been 2.5 cm. From that they determined (because of the size of the
> fragment/s needed to cause an exit of that diameter) that it was the
> "principal" exit and that no other signifiant exit could have existed.
>

Silly and undocumented. Are you really going to try to convince everyone
that your bullet stayed intact in the head and left only ONE exit wound?
Then what left all the dozens of dustlike fragments? How can one intact
fragment hit both the chrome topping and the windshield?

> It all makes sense Marsh, when you try to put the pieces together logially
> and not to fit a wacky five shot multiple shooter scenario.
>
>

It didn't work in 1964 and it doesn't work in 2011.

[Anthony Marsh]

The family? Another false claim. Caroline and John John did not see the
body. Jackie saw the body all the time in Dallas and she never said
anything about small puncture wounds in the face. I have asked you about
10 times and you still can not show me these alleged small puncture wound
in the autopsy photos. Let's hear your excuse that the autopsy photos are
fake.

>
>

[John Canal]

In article <4edb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

To the other posters: I'm going to start ignoring Marsh's B/S again...he
keeps recycling the same tired foolish arguments that I've rebutted over
and over. So please don't think for a moment that when I don't respond to
his wacky theories I can't rebut them or think there're one bit plausible.

Thanks.....anyone else want to argue with him? If so I wish you well.

>> You don't think the head shot bullet fragmented? If you admit it did (and
>> it's like pulling teeth to get you to admit the obvious), when do
>> ***YOU*** think it started to break up....if it didn't when it hit the
>> skull.....the soft cerebrum? Get serious.
>>
>
>You talking to me? You must be because no one else will talk to you.

Because they have no good arguments against what I say.....basically their
afraid to engage me. McAdanms hits and runs. They know that I'd run
circles around them when it comes to discussing the medical
evidence....you, Marsh, don't seem to mind.

>Of
>course I think the bullet fragmented the moment it hit.

I hate to be nitpicky, but the bullet "fractured" the moment it hit but
the pieces didn't separate until the bullet was a few inches or so inside
the skull. Tom Pinkston, who is an expert mathematician and is familiar
with the case stressed that point with me.

>But my bullet is

uh mythical?

>not the same as your bullet. You bullet is a FMJ Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
>hitting the back of the head somewhere, although you're not sure where or
>at least we can't get you to stick with one theory for more than a half

I challenge you to find where I said once in the last 11 years that the
autopsists were wrong about where the bullet entered!

And quit misrepresenting what my position is....someone might foolishly
believe something you blabber.

>hour.
>
>Your bullet came from the TSBD and that type of bullet could not possibly
>fragment into dozens of dustlike fragments.

B/S. When the bullet came apart there was metallic debris. There was only
one channel-like path through the brain and only one beveled-in defect and
only one beveled-out defect.

You should have waited to study the medical evidence better before you
published your position...now as more information comes out debunking your
wacky theories you're still stuck defending those indefensible theories,
and looking foolish doing so. You can't change your mind publicly..no one
does...your only options are to disappear or to be one of the laughing
stocks of this NG.

You're already a legend....and you'll not have the legacy you wish you
had.

Sad.

>My bullet from the right front
>is an explosive bullet which is designed to explode into dozens of
>dustlike fragments.

So you saw the X-rays and dozens of tiny fragments and assumed they
couldn't possibly have come from a 6.5 mm M/C FMJ and deduced there must
have been another shooter who fired an explosive bullet?

Why don't you take a larger leap, Marsh?

Typical CT faulty deductive reasoning.

>> Anyway, it's pretty obvious that it did what the grahic suggests....at
>> least to those who understand the evidence....and admit that the circular
>
>Poisoning the Well. The only thing you have is your phony Argument by
>Authority, but you are not an authority on anything.

I never said I was...but I'm pretty good at researchng what the experts
and witnesses say and putting it all together....you, on the other hand,
didn't even try to analyze what all the experts and witnesses said.

>> defect below the ruler and centered in F8 (which is titled, "missile wound
>> in posterior skull...") is the entry and not a "spot" (Marsh) or birth
>> defect or whatever (McAdams, and sadly even Paul Seaton).

Duh, no comment? Mr. "They Took a Picture of a Spot" Marsh?

>> Note also that the channel-like, through and through laceration through
>> the brain is consistent with the track shown in the graphic. From the tip
>> of the occipital lobe, through a point just above the Thalamus, to and out
>> the tip of the occipital lobe.
>>
>>> Can you duplicate that?
>>
>> Do you want to volunteer as a stand in for JFK?
>>
>
>Folks, look at the tricks he uses to evade the question. He separates the
>one question from the paragraph because he knows that he can not duplicate
>what he says happened. He doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano and he's
>afraid of guns.

I qualified expert or above every year of my 21-year military career
either on the M-1 30 cal. carbine or on the M-16. Ya sure, I'm afraid of
guns. Woooooooo!

And you're afraid of the truth.

>He has no way to do any real tests the way Lattimer did.
>
>> :-)
>>
>>> You used the exit on the coronal suture, but why did you throw out the
>>> exit Angel saw on the forehead?
>>
>> Because, (1) duh, the autopsists never mentioned your mythical exit on the
>> forehead...and...they saw the body, not just a photo...repeat
>> duh....and...
>>
>
>
>My wound in the forehead is not an exit.

I knew you fantasized it was an entry from you mythical GK shoter with his
explosive bullets.

>My wound in the forehead is the
>entrance.

Look at the bloody enlargement...does it look like any kind of a bullet wound?
No, unles you're half blind...or tend to enjoy spreading false statements? Which
one fits you, Marsh?

Don't you wish you saw that enlargement before you claimed that defect was
a bullet wound?

Of course you do....but you'd never admit it.

>Dr. Lawrence Angel said the semi-circular defect in the forehead was AN
>exit point.

I've said that right along...and he was wrong about it like Sturdivan,
Baden and Artwohl....now how many of those experts saw the body?

That's right, none....EARTH TO MARSH: no one who saw the body said your
defect was a bullet wound....look at the enlargement and even you should
understand why!

>You won't even admit that it exists and claim you can't see it
>so therefore the autopsy doctors couldn't see it either. So what do you do

What are you babling about?...of course whatever it is exists...but it's
not a bullet wound...for the hundreth time look at the enlargement!

Get it? No? Then just live with the awful truth.

>to invalidate Dr. Angel? Do you need to call him incompetent.

No, and neither is Sturdivan, Baden, or Artwohl, who all misstated that
the defect in the forehead was an exit wound...they just aren't perfect
and obviously didn't see the enlargement of that defect.

In fact both Baden and Angel agreed that the principal exit was just
forward of the coronal suture near the Stehanion.....which was medical
miles from your mythical bullet wound above is right eye...do you think
they meant to imply there were two exits?

Be truthful Marsh.

>Or a
>conspiracy kook? How do you make him go away? As for seeing the body, the
>autopsy doctors saw a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline
>and just assumed it was an entrance wound.

You are totally lost on the medical evidence. They were confused about the
BOH photos and said so later...but you won't ever forget or forgive them
for that because you need misstatements like that and Angel's error to
build your wacky case on.

>They did not see the bullet
>wound in the throat. Incompetent. A janitor would have done a better job.

They knew there was a tracheostomy over a bullet wound and you need them
to be as competent as janitors at performing an autopsy because
practically none of their findings supports a GK shooter...or your silly
five-shot, explosive bullet scenario.

I've had enough of your nonsense...please excuse me if I ignore your B/S
for the forseeable future...I hope the others can understand that by not
responding to your wacky comments, I'm in no way saying I couldn't easily
rebut them or agree with anything you say.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/4/2011 9:34 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4edb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
> To the other posters: I'm going to start ignoring Marsh's B/S again...he
> keeps recycling the same tired foolish arguments that I've rebutted over
> and over. So please don't think for a moment that when I don't respond to
> his wacky theories I can't rebut them or think there're one bit plausible.
>
> Thanks.....anyone else want to argue with him? If so I wish you well.
>
>>> You don't think the head shot bullet fragmented? If you admit it did (and
>>> it's like pulling teeth to get you to admit the obvious), when do
>>> ***YOU*** think it started to break up....if it didn't when it hit the
>>> skull.....the soft cerebrum? Get serious.
>>>
>>
>> You talking to me? You must be because no one else will talk to you.
>
> Because they have no good arguments against what I say.....basically their
> afraid to engage me. McAdanms hits and runs. They know that I'd run
> circles around them when it comes to discussing the medical
> evidence....you, Marsh, don't seem to mind.
>
>> Of
>> course I think the bullet fragmented the moment it hit.
>
> I hate to be nitpicky, but the bullet "fractured" the moment it hit but
> the pieces didn't separate until the bullet was a few inches or so inside
> the skull. Tom Pinkston, who is an expert mathematician and is familiar
> with the case stressed that point with me.
>

And he duplicated this with shooting tests?

>> But my bullet is
>
> uh mythical?
>

You mean you don't know that explosive bullets really do exist? That is
what Hinckley used.

>> not the same as your bullet. You bullet is a FMJ Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
>> hitting the back of the head somewhere, although you're not sure where or
>> at least we can't get you to stick with one theory for more than a half
>
> I challenge you to find where I said once in the last 11 years that the
> autopsists were wrong about where the bullet entered!
>
> And quit misrepresenting what my position is....someone might foolishly
> believe something you blabber.
>
>> hour.
>>
>> Your bullet came from the TSBD and that type of bullet could not possibly
>> fragment into dozens of dustlike fragments.
>
> B/S. When the bullet came apart there was metallic debris. There was only
> one channel-like path through the brain and only one beveled-in defect and
> only one beveled-out defect.
>

Show me this channel-like path and SHOW me the beveled-in defect.

> You should have waited to study the medical evidence better before you
> published your position...now as more information comes out debunking your
> wacky theories you're still stuck defending those indefensible theories,
> and looking foolish doing so. You can't change your mind publicly..no one
> does...your only options are to disappear or to be one of the laughing
> stocks of this NG.
>

I don't give a fig what you think.

> You're already a legend....and you'll not have the legacy you wish you
> had.
>
> Sad.
>
>> My bullet from the right front
>> is an explosive bullet which is designed to explode into dozens of
>> dustlike fragments.
>
> So you saw the X-rays and dozens of tiny fragments and assumed they
> couldn't possibly have come from a 6.5 mm M/C FMJ and deduced there must
> have been another shooter who fired an explosive bullet?
>
> Why don't you take a larger leap, Marsh?
>
> Typical CT faulty deductive reasoning.
>
>>> Anyway, it's pretty obvious that it did what the grahic suggests....at
>>> least to those who understand the evidence....and admit that the circular
>>
>> Poisoning the Well. The only thing you have is your phony Argument by
>> Authority, but you are not an authority on anything.
>
> I never said I was...but I'm pretty good at researchng what the experts
> and witnesses say and putting it all together....you, on the other hand,
> didn't even try to analyze what all the experts and witnesses said.
>

No, you don't list to what the experts say. You believe the incompetent
autopsy doctors.

>>> defect below the ruler and centered in F8 (which is titled, "missile wound
>>> in posterior skull...") is the entry and not a "spot" (Marsh) or birth
>>> defect or whatever (McAdams, and sadly even Paul Seaton).
>
> Duh, no comment? Mr. "They Took a Picture of a Spot" Marsh?
>
>>> Note also that the channel-like, through and through laceration through
>>> the brain is consistent with the track shown in the graphic. From the tip
>>> of the occipital lobe, through a point just above the Thalamus, to and out
>>> the tip of the occipital lobe.
>>>
>>>> Can you duplicate that?
>>>
>>> Do you want to volunteer as a stand in for JFK?
>>>
>>
>> Folks, look at the tricks he uses to evade the question. He separates the
>> one question from the paragraph because he knows that he can not duplicate
>> what he says happened. He doesn't have a Mannlicher-Carcano and he's
>> afraid of guns.
>
> I qualified expert or above every year of my 21-year military career
> either on the M-1 30 cal. carbine or on the M-16. Ya sure, I'm afraid of
> guns. Woooooooo!
>

You can't duplicate what you said happened.

> And you're afraid of the truth.
>
>> He has no way to do any real tests the way Lattimer did.
>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>> You used the exit on the coronal suture, but why did you throw out the
>>>> exit Angel saw on the forehead?
>>>
>>> Because, (1) duh, the autopsists never mentioned your mythical exit on the
>>> forehead...and...they saw the body, not just a photo...repeat
>>> duh....and...
>>>
>>
>>
>> My wound in the forehead is not an exit.
>
> I knew you fantasized it was an entry from you mythical GK shoter with his
> explosive bullets.
>
>> My wound in the forehead is the
>> entrance.
>
> Look at the bloody enlargement...does it look like any kind of a bullet wound?
> No, unles you're half blind...or tend to enjoy spreading false statements? Which
> one fits you, Marsh?
>

It looks exactly like the entrance wounds I have uploaded before.

> Don't you wish you saw that enlargement before you claimed that defect was
> a bullet wound?
>

Which enlargement. You never saw the Fox originals.

> Of course you do....but you'd never admit it.
>
>> Dr. Lawrence Angel said the semi-circular defect in the forehead was AN
>> exit point.
>
> I've said that right along...and he was wrong about it like Sturdivan,
> Baden and Artwohl....now how many of those experts saw the body?
>

So the top experts in the world are wrong and your incompetent autopsy
doctors are right?

> That's right, none....EARTH TO MARSH: no one who saw the body said your
> defect was a bullet wound....look at the enlargement and even you should
> understand why!
>
>> You won't even admit that it exists and claim you can't see it
>> so therefore the autopsy doctors couldn't see it either. So what do you do
>
> What are you babling about?...of course whatever it is exists...but it's
> not a bullet wound...for the hundreth time look at the enlargement!
>
> Get it? No? Then just live with the awful truth.
>
>> to invalidate Dr. Angel? Do you need to call him incompetent.
>
> No, and neither is Sturdivan, Baden, or Artwohl, who all misstated that
> the defect in the forehead was an exit wound...they just aren't perfect
> and obviously didn't see the enlargement of that defect.
>
> In fact both Baden and Angel agreed that the principal exit was just
> forward of the coronal suture near the Stehanion.....which was medical
> miles from your mythical bullet wound above is right eye...do you think
> they meant to imply there were two exits?
>

Oh, so now you call it the PRINCIPAL exit. Baden said it was the ONLY
exit. And Angel did not cite it as the PRINCIPAL exit. You just love to
misrepresent the evidence.

> Be truthful Marsh.
>
>> Or a
>> conspiracy kook? How do you make him go away? As for seeing the body, the
>> autopsy doctors saw a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the hairline
>> and just assumed it was an entrance wound.
>
> You are totally lost on the medical evidence. They were confused about the
> BOH photos and said so later...but you won't ever forget or forgive them

You mean YOUR perfect autopsy doctors were confused? How can that be if
they were such experts?

> for that because you need misstatements like that and Angel's error to
> build your wacky case on.
>

What Angel error? If you don't think the semi-circular defect was a
bullet wound what do you think it was? And where do you place additional
exits?

>> They did not see the bullet
>> wound in the throat. Incompetent. A janitor would have done a better job.
>
> They knew there was a tracheostomy over a bullet wound and you need them

No they didn't and you don't have any proof that they did.

> to be as competent as janitors at performing an autopsy because
> practically none of their findings supports a GK shooter...or your silly
> five-shot, explosive bullet scenario.
>

Maybe their original autopsy report did and that's why they were ordered
to change it.

> I've had enough of your nonsense...please excuse me if I ignore your B/S
> for the forseeable future...I hope the others can understand that by not
> responding to your wacky comments, I'm in no way saying I couldn't easily
> rebut them or agree with anything you say.
>

Run away.

[jas]

On Dec 4, 7:34 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4edbe...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> To the other posters: I'm going to start ignoring Marsh's B/S again...

> I've had enough of your nonsense...please excuse me if I ignore your B/S
> for the forseeable future...I hope the others can understand that by not
> responding to your wacky comments, I'm in no way saying I couldn't easily
> rebut them or agree with anything you say.
>
> --
> John Canal
> jca...@webtv.net

I'll give you kudos for addressing Marsh as much as you have.

Don't worry about the other posters not understanding if you bow out. It's
all too obvious Marsh has single-handedly flushed his own credibility into
the sewer with his "entrance wound in the forehead" assertion.

[bigdog]

On Dec 4, 11:58 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't worry about the other posters not understanding if you bow out. It's
> all too obvious Marsh has single-handedly flushed his own credibility into
> the sewer with his "entrance wound in the forehead" assertion.

I quite responding to Marsh quite a while ago. There's no reason to
revisit the reasons. I think everyone knows why.

[Brokedad]

On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:

Should you find the time to do so, The Sixth Floor Museum can now
fully explain this "great enigma"!

As well as even show a relatively nice drawing of WHY!

Tom

[burgundy]

So what?

[claviger]

On Dec 3, 9:58 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

He guessed that might be the case but later realized his mistake.

> > in the X-rays.  By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> > wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays.  Again no bullets
>
> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
> Parkland Hospital.

Reason being the ER team assumed there would be an autopsy soon after ER
finished life saving efforts. That didn't happen for security reasons.
It would have been a good idea to take X-rays before releasing the body
but the SS was in a panic to get Jackie and LBJ back to DC where more
security assets were available. Also the autopsy could be done at a
Federal hospital. The big mistake was not having it done at WRAMC.

[claviger]

casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
didn't.

[claviger]

The conclusion by three different panels of medical experts is the
President was struck by two projectiles from behind, both of which caused
through-and-through wounds, one to the head and one to the upper thorax
part of the anatomy. The problem is most critics who relate to soft nose
hunting bullets and handguns, which are meant to deform and expand on
contact for maximum stopping power on wild game or criminals. The
military bullets used by WWI and WWII ammunition were designed for a
different purpose to cause more humane wounds to the human body.

Sounds illogical but true. These bullets were encased in a copper jacket
to prevent lead expansion or disintegration. This type of bullet was less
likely to tumble as well. The bullet would act as a drill through the
torso and if it came out the other side had the potential to wound more
than one soldier in close groups. That factor was considered an advantage
on the battlefield, yet created survivable wounds on both armies. A
wounded soldier creates more problems for the enemy than a dead soldier,
so there was a military advantage to FMJ bullets after all.

Trained snipers only need one shot to kill a target so a soft nose bullet
is better for this purpose. The motto of military snipers is "One shot,
one kill." The fact the assassin on the 6th floor took 3 shots to kill
the intended target indicates an amateur sniper. The fact this sniper
chose FMJ bullets also indicates an amateur, unless this sniper intended
to kill both JFK and JBC. One theory is LHO was actually firing at JBC
whom he had a grudge against and accidently shot the President twice
because of a slow trigger pull. The flaw in the scope would make that
unlikely if it was off at the time of the shooting. We can't be sure it
was, but the flaw would have aided the shooter aiming at a moving target
gradually turning to the right. This flaw may have actually helped an
amateur like LHO.

The "magic bullet" criticism only demonstrates ignorance of military FMJ
projectiles and what they were designed to do. The wound to the back and
exit from the throat is indicative of a FMJ bullet, especially one that
punctured through soft tissue first before slamming end-over-end into the
next object in its path. The head shot wound ballistics is more like a
soft nose projectile. The rugged 6.5 FMJ seldom disintegrates into a
"lead snowstorm". It can fail when hitting hard bone but usually breaks
into larger fragments than seen in the X-ray of the head wound.

A ballistic expert named Howard Donahue studied this case for over a
decade and was bothered by the head shot wound pattern that was an
anomalous for the 6.5 FMJ. Not impossible, but rare. There is another
type bullet notorious for disintegrating into numerous small fragments.
That bullet is the .223 FMJ military bullet used in the AR-15. This
bullet is propelled at extremely high velocity which creates extreme
thermal loads on the projectile as it passes through air resistance on its
way to the target. Heated by friction the bullet is thought to have a
meltdown causing the thin copper jacket to soften along with the lead
core. When hitting bone the projectile often disintegrates into a lead
snowstorm. This happens so frequently there are demands for this bullet
to be classified as a frangible bullet, a category considered illegal by
the Geneva Convention pertaining to military weapons.

Donahue was puzzled by the head wound for a long time before he discovered
there was an AR-15 carried in the follow-up security car close behind the
Presidential Limousine. This rifle was pulled out and handled during the
drive down Elm Street by one of the bodyguards. This fact caused Donhue
to wonder if this weapon was accidently fired by one of the bodyguards
trying to protect the President. Donhue had experience from been called
in as an expert witness by various police departments to analyze shooting
incidents. He was familiar with the hazard "friendly-fire" accidents pose
to policemen and soldiers when sudden gunfire takes place.

Given the forensic evidence pertaining to the head wound Donahue
ultimately came to the conclusion this is what happened to President
Kennedy. If so, it was a blessing to the President because the back-
to-neck wound grazed the spine enough to cause paralysis and the President
may have to been unable to speak had he survived. One opinion is the neck
wound might have caused the President to linger on for awhile before
infection finally brought death due to his immune system weakened by
Addison's disease. So even if the head shot was accidental, it was a
merciful coup-de-grâce that prevented an even worse tragedy for the
President, his family, and the nation.

[burgundy]

What if the back wound -- the shallow one --- the documented one by
all three autopsists that went "nowhere" --- was a "dud" from Oswald's
rifle. Just a bad bullet. No intention to shoot something with no
effect; just a bullet that wasn't hit right. That firecracker sound
people heard? Because you have a documented shallow wound and no real
explanation for it. Mine makes as much sense as anybody else's and I
didn't create the idea.

Burgundy

[burgundy]

On Dec 7, 2:36 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you are a "mortal errorist?"

[Anthony Marsh]

Or a defective rifle with a broken and defective scope.

> chose FMJ bullets also indicates an amateur, unless this sniper intended
> to kill both JFK and JBC. One theory is LHO was actually firing at JBC
> whom he had a grudge against and accidently shot the President twice

Yeah, right. Whose theory is that one? Cite and quote please.

Physically impossible to shoot through the Queen Mary's windshield
without breaking the glass.

> to-neck wound grazed the spine enough to cause paralysis and the President
> may have to been unable to speak had he survived. One opinion is the neck
> wound might have caused the President to linger on for awhile before
> infection finally brought death due to his immune system weakened by
> Addison's disease. So even if the head shot was accidental, it was a

> merciful coup-de-grāce that prevented an even worse tragedy for the

> President, his family, and the nation.
>
>
>

Why don't you turn it into an intentional coup-de-grāce and call Hickey
a hero?

[Anthony Marsh]

You said "they saw the body." No, THEY didn't.
I notice that you keep refusing to show me the puncture wounds on the
autopsy photos. Is that because you are such a conspiracy pusher that
you think the autopsy photos are fake?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, at least you are honest enough to admit that simple fact. Is that
only because you are a conspiracy buff. We have one WC defender who can't
even admit that simple fact. He claims that Humes knew about the through
and through wound on Friday afternoon within hours of the assassination
and was just putting on a shadow play to mislead the FBI.

>>> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
>>> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
>>
>> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
>> Parkland Hospital.
>
> Reason being the ER team assumed there would be an autopsy soon after ER
> finished life saving efforts. That didn't happen for security reasons.

What security reasons? Specify. When Reagan and the other shooting victims
were wheeled into the ER, didn't they take X-rays? In JFK's case their
only concern was to try to save his life, not look for evidence to
recover.

> It would have been a good idea to take X-rays before releasing the body
> but the SS was in a panic to get Jackie and LBJ back to DC where more
> security assets were available. Also the autopsy could be done at a
> Federal hospital. The big mistake was not having it done at WRAMC.
>

I don't understand what distinction you are making about Federal and why
Walter Reed would be better than Bethesda. Do you suspect that they would
have done a better job at Walter Reed? Maybe, but I suggest that Earl Rose
would have done a better job than Commander Humes and he could call the
surgeons over to explain what they did.

>
>

[John Canal]

In article <164ae054-64b9-4574...@t38g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...

>
>On Dec 3, 9:58=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2011 2:44 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> =A0wrote:
>> >> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and ot=
>her
>> >> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Eve=
>ning
>> >> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josi=

>ah's
>> >> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>

>> >> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence =

>the
>> >> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>> >> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>

>> >> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs maj=
>or
>> >> discussion and clarification.
>>
>> >> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "Du=

>ring
>> >> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which

>> >> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inc=

>hes
>> >> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>

>> >> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time i=
>t
>> >> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this poi=

>nt
>> >> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing

>> >> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short dist=

>ance
>> >> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>

>> >> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thront=
>on
>> >> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling=

> its
>> >> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three

>> >> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or se=

>cond
>> >> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent

>> >> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration=
> of
>> >> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside t=
>he
>> >> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' =

>He
>> >> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
>> >> shoulder.'"
>>

>> >> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyo=
>ne
>> >> claim that?
>> > Burgundy,
>>
>> > Large muscles have an elasticity factor. =A0A wound tunnel through soft
>> > tissue will expand and contract. =A0If there was a shallow wound there
>> > would be a bullet still inside the wound track. =A0No missile showed up

>>
>> Not according to Humes. He said it fell out during cardiac massage.
>
>He guessed that might be the case but later realized his mistake.

No he didn't guess....he knew all along the bullet transited and so did
Burkley, Boswell, and Finck.

I know you're not going to respond...I don't expect you to...because the
only one foolish enough to argue against a slam dunk conclusion is
Marsh...he doesn't mind being embarrassed. You, on the other hand, like
McAdams, Bigdog, and some of the others have some pride and know better
than to argue with me re. the medical evidence.

See if any of this makes sense re. your deciding Humes first guessed the
bullet fell out.

If he "didn't" know there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat, think of all
the following rather bizarre events that would have had to have taken
place.

1. Perry and Humes didn't talk on the phone Friday...even though Perry
first testified that they did indeed talk on Friday. He only changed his
mind to the "Okay, we must have talked Sat. AM" B/S story after Specter
convinced him he forgot the day on which he participated in perhaps one of
the more memorable and important phone conversations in his life.

2. Burkley, who was in TR1 as well as at the morgue during the autopsy,
somehow didn't realize they had performed a tracheostomy over a bullet
wound......or, if he did realize that, he had a brain cramp during the
autopsy and didn't tell Humes, et al about it.

3. Burkley, and no one else told any of the autopsists, or Ebersole, not
to mention Karnei (he assisted the autopsists when they needed him) that
Dan Rather, on national TV Friday afternoon, announced that they had
received word that a bullet had entered JFK's throat and exited his back.

4. Burkley, and no one else told any of the autopsists, or Ebersole, not
to mention Karnei (he assisted the autopsists when they needed him) that
at the PH Press Conference on Friday afternoon it was announced that a
bullet had entered JFK's throat and exited his back.

5. Humes didn't really see the clothes which were a dead-giveaway the
bullet transited his upper back/neck. Note: Sure they said they didn't see
them but if you read the testimony and statements related to that matter
it's obvious they did....why they lied...see below.

6. Between the three autopsists and Ebersole, they collectively couldn't
see on the X-rays the air in the tissue between the throat and back
wounds, any debris around the C7/T1 trasverse process, or any slight
fracture to that process.

7. When they opened the upper/thorax and saw that the apex of his right
lung and the pleura were bruised it didn't dawn on them that, even though
a straight line connecting those bruises and the back wound pointed
directly to the throat wound, the bullet didn't transit.

8 When they saw the bruised strap muscles on the right side of the throat
near the throat wound it didn't dawn on them that, because the bruising
must have occurred while he was still alive (when he was shot and still
had a robust heartbeat), the bullet must have transited.

9. Boswell either was lying when he stated they saw a partial perimeter of
a bullet wound along the margin of the trach incision or they collectively
didn't figure out that partial perimeter was "once upon a time" (before
the trach incision) a complete bullet hole which must have been caused by
the passing of the bullet that entered his back.

10. When they saw the nick in the right side of the trachea, it didn't
dawn on them that what caused the bruising of the apex of the pleura and
lung and strap muscles near the throat wound, more than likely also caused
the trachea nick.

11. Boswell and Finck lied under oath when they stated they knew that
night the bullet transited...and Boswell lied to the Baltimore Sun about
that too.

12. Humes lied under oath when he said they realized the bruising of the
neck muscles must have been caused by a bullet or learned after the
autopsy (Wounds for Dummies 101?) that bruising of one's tissues normally
occurrs before death.

I'll spare you the rest of the ev. that shows they knew about the bullet
transiting that night if not even before the body arrived.

Addendum.

1. They lied about not knowing that night the bullet transited because
that night they were worried that with JFK in an anatomically erect
position the back wound was actually a little below the throat
wound....and they feared there had been a shooter firing from behind and
near ground level...aka a conspiracy.....a possibility they thought this
country didn't need to hear about at least that night.

BTW, that fear there had been multiple shooters is why there were no
pictures taken (or at least kept in the inventory) of JFK's BOH when his
body was first received...and why only pictures of the reconstructed BOH
remained in the inventory.

2. They lied when they said they didn't see the clothes because if they
had they would have known the bullet transited...IOW, their first lie
needed the second one.

So, do you still think they guessed that the bullet fell out and later
(when was that...you didn't specify when "later" was) realized their
mistake?

Humes misled the FBI that night on purpose. The FBI even thought they
didn't discver the back wound until the later stages of the autopsy...when
they actually found it right away during the preliminary examination of
the body.

Anyway, when you don't explain why (in view of the above points) you still
think they guessed the back bullet fell out, I'll know you don't have a
good rebuttal for those points.

John Canal

P.S. Marsh says Humes et al didn't know that night the bullet transited
because for them to miss seeing the mythical entry wound in JFK's forehead
(that the enlargement shows is hardly a bullet wound) he needs for them to
be dumber than a bag of hammers....which would be a good place to store
away his theory.

And no, I'll not reply to his recycled B/S so-called points.


>> > in the X-rays. =A0By the same

token if the throat wound was an entrance

>> > wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. =A0Again no bullets

>>
>> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
>> Parkland Hospital.
>
>Reason being the ER team assumed there would be an autopsy soon after ER
>finished life saving efforts. That didn't happen for security reasons.
>It would have been a good idea to take X-rays before releasing the body
>but the SS was in a panic to get Jackie and LBJ back to DC where more
>security assets were available. Also the autopsy could be done at a
>Federal hospital. The big mistake was not having it done at WRAMC.
>
>
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[claviger]

Burgundy,

Marsh speculated about the first shot being a fouling shot to clear
the barrel and/or a dud round of low velocity. Just because the
pathologist used his finger to probe the wound tunnel doesn't mean it
was a shallow wound. He did not feel a bullet which is why they take
X-rays as SOP. No bullets showed up in the X-rays, only tiny
fragments in the brain. Through-and-through wounds, sometimes called
"in-and-out" wounds, are not unusual for 6.5 FMJ projectiles as
explained earlier. They are designed to do that.

Soft nosed bullets are designed to do just the opposite, but they
often cause through-and-through wounds too, especially from hunting
rifles. Trained hunters never take a shot if any animal is standing
on the other side of the intended target.
The .357 magnum handgun is notorious for causing T-&-T wounds even
though it uses an unjacketed bullet.

Howard Donahue was a well trained ballistics expert with years of
experience who carefully studied this case for over a decade. He had
no problem with the SBT and supported that conclusion. He did have a
problem with the head shot based on terminal ballistics (wound
ballistics).

[claviger]

burgungy,

> So you are a "mortal errorist?"

If there was a second shooter involved that day I believe Howard
Donahue figured out who it was.

[claviger]

It wasn't broken, it was off center.

> > chose FMJ bullets also indicates an amateur, unless this sniper intended
> > to kill both JFK and JBC.  One theory is LHO was actually firing at JBC
> > whom he had a grudge against and accidently shot the President twice
>
> Yeah, right. Whose theory is that one? Cite and quote please.

I can't believe you didn't know that! It was an early theory when
Marina said LHO liked JFK. We know he was unhappy with JBC about his
military discharge status. It's entirely possible LHO stopped his
target lead on both shots when he pulled the trigger, an amateur
mistake. When he did, the vehicle moved the target back into his
scope circle or open sights.

> > Given the forensic evidence pertaining to the head wound Donahue
> > ultimately came to the conclusion this is what happened to President
> > Kennedy.  If so, it was a blessing to the President because the back-
>
> Physically impossible to shoot through the Queen Mary's windshield
> without breaking the glass.

Not when standing on the back seat.

> > to-neck wound grazed the spine enough to cause paralysis and the President
> > may have to been unable to speak had he survived.  One opinion is the neck
> > wound might have caused the President to linger on for awhile before
> > infection finally brought death due to his immune system weakened by
> > Addison's disease.  So even if the head shot was accidental, it was a

> > merciful coup-de-grâce that prevented an even worse tragedy for the

> > President, his family, and the nation.
>

> Why don't you turn it into an intentional coup-de-grâce and call Hickey
> a hero?
He was a hero and did his best to protect the President. Whether LHO
or Hickey, the last shot was still a coup-de-grâce. After the first
shot the President was doomed and the next shot ended his misery. He
suffered for 5 seconds before blacking out. To me that is a blessing.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> >> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
> >> Parkland Hospital.
> > Reason being the ER team assumed there would be an autopsy soon after ER
> > finished life saving efforts.  That didn't happen for security reasons.
> What security reasons? Specify.

The SS had no idea how many assassins were involved or how large a
possible conspiracy might be. The logical thing would be to get the
Vice President and Jackie out of this situation asap.

> When Reagan and the other shooting victims were wheeled into the ER,
> didn't they take X-rays? In JFK's case their only concern was to try to
> save his life, not look for evidence to recover.

I agree. Had they known the body would be removed before an immediate
autopsy they may have taken X-rays. As it was the Feds outranked
county officials.

> > It would have been a good idea to take X-rays before releasing the body
> > but the SS was in a panic to get Jackie and LBJ back to DC where more
> > security assets were available.  Also the autopsy could be done at a
> > Federal hospital.  The big mistake was not having it done at WRAMC.
> I don't understand what distinction you are making about Federal and why
> Walter Reed would be better than Bethesda. Do you suspect that they would
> have done a better job at Walter Reed?

At a Federal facility they could have complete control and surround
the hospital with Army personnel at WRAMC or Marines at Bethesda,
which they did. WRAMC would have been a much better choice since they
were very familiar with gunshot wounds, for obvious reasons.

> Maybe, but I suggest that Earl Rose would have done a better job than
> Commander Humes and he could call the surgeons over to explain what
> they did.

Sound logic. Rose had experience with gunshot wounds.

[claviger]

Are you saying the Gawler mortuary team did not see the body?!! There
job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the same thing. YOU said the Kennedy family saw the body at the
morgue. They did not.

> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
> applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>

You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> merciful coup-de-grāce that prevented an even worse tragedy for the

>>> President, his family, and the nation.
>>
>> What if the back wound -- the shallow one --- the documented one by
>> all three autopsists that went "nowhere" --- was a "dud" from Oswald's
>> rifle. Just a bad bullet. No intention to shoot something with no
>> effect; just a bullet that wasn't hit right. That firecracker sound
>> people heard? Because you have a documented shallow wound and no real
>> explanation for it. Mine makes as much sense as anybody else's and I
>> didn't create the idea.
> Burgundy,
>
> Marsh speculated about the first shot being a fouling shot to clear

Not exactly. I was suggesting that the first shot might have a lower
muzzle velocity and sound level JUST LIKE a fouling shot

> the barrel and/or a dud round of low velocity. Just because the

I never said dud round. There has never been a dud round with that WCC
ammunition.

> pathologist used his finger to probe the wound tunnel doesn't mean it
> was a shallow wound. He did not feel a bullet which is why they take
> X-rays as SOP. No bullets showed up in the X-rays, only tiny
> fragments in the brain. Through-and-through wounds, sometimes called
> "in-and-out" wounds, are not unusual for 6.5 FMJ projectiles as
> explained earlier. They are designed to do that.
>
> Soft nosed bullets are designed to do just the opposite, but they
> often cause through-and-through wounds too, especially from hunting
> rifles. Trained hunters never take a shot if any animal is standing
> on the other side of the intended target.
> The .357 magnum handgun is notorious for causing T-&-T wounds even
> though it uses an unjacketed bullet.
>
> Howard Donahue was a well trained ballistics expert with years of
> experience who carefully studied this case for over a decade. He had

Nope.

> no problem with the SBT and supported that conclusion. He did have a

The HSCA also had a SBT and also conspiracy.
Donahue wanted to pretend that he was a WC defender.

[claviger]

"They" were the morticians. Because you confuse so easily I added this
clarifying answer:

I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
didn't.

> > job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
> > closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what.  They also
> > applied make-up on the face.  One employee is on the record testifying
> > he saw minor puncture wounds on the face.  The make-up guy mentioned
> > grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>
> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body. They have
testified to what they saw. You were not there to see the body. They
were. End of discussion.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > Howard Donahue was a well trained ballistics expert with years of
> > experience who carefully studied this case for over a decade.  He had
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> > no problem with the SBT and supported that conclusion.  He did have a
>
> The HSCA also had a SBT and also conspiracy.
> Donahue wanted to pretend that he was a WC defender.

Actually he was critical of the WCR and HSCA. He conducted his own
investigation to satisfy his professional curiosity about the case. The
HSCA wanted nothing to do with him and he was very frustrated in their
lack of curiosity. This lack of interest by the HSCA is completely
understandable given their preconceived ideas the mob was responsible for
this ambush. An accidental shot by a bodyguard is not something they
wanted to hear, so they ignored Donahue.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, the sentence just before you used the word "they" specifically
mentioned "the family." "They" refers back to "the family." That's how
pronouns work in English.

> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
> a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
> casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
> didn't.
>
>>> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
>>> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
>>> applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
>>> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
>>> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>>
>> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
>
> The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body. They have
> testified to what they saw. You were not there to see the body. They
> were. End of discussion.
>

So you would believe whatever a janitor or technician said?
Last chance. Show me these pock marks on the autopsy photos.

>
>
>

[burgundy]

So who shot JFK Hickey if that's his name?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why in the world should WC defenders want to hear about a SS agent
killing Kennedy?

[claviger]

SSA Hickey was the designated agent to carry the AR-15 and he sat
higher up than the other agents to give him a better view of the area
around the Limousine. Donahue speculates Hickey was the only agent to
figure out where the shots were coming from. Hickey grabbed the rifle
and instinctively tried to stand and turn toward the TSBD so he could
fire back at the sniper in the 6th floor window. When he did the
driver either hit the brakes or accelerated or both, causing Hickey to
lose his balance and accidently fire his weapon.

Hickey was doing his job trying to protect the President. Had he shot
the sniper he would have been a national hero. Timing is everything
and what a difference one or two seconds make. The AR-15 has very
little "kick" so it would be possible to fire it in a situation like
this and not know it. In fact that is what Donahue thinks happened.
It is SOP for most law enforcement professionals to inventory their
weapons after a shooting incident. It is not uncommon for officers to
fire their weapon and not remember doing it, which is why this post
incident procedure was put in place. When they do the post incident
inspection of their weapon/ammo and find an empty shell, then they
realize what they did fire a shot. Donahue requested a post incident
inspection report form the SS and they ignored his request.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to support the Donahue
theory, not the least of which is anecdotal stories by people having
friends and relatives in various government agencies in DC. From what
I can tell, the trip to Dallas was the first time the SS carried the
AR-15 in a parade situation. After the tragedy in downtown Dallas the
Chief of the U.S. Secret Service James J Rowley was ordered to NOT
carry this weapon anymore. If the AR-15 wasn't involved in this
shooting incident as the SS claims, why would someone make a decision
to not carry it again? This new high tech weapon was a short,
lightweight, accurate rifle easy to carry and conceal. Because the
ammo did not kick it would be easier to put multiple shots on target.
It was perfect for the intended use by the SS so it's a mystery why it
was prohibited for further use. Makes no sense unless it caused a
problem in Dealey Plaza that day.

"Did Rowley let the cat out of the bag?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6398c7b87bd42828/0aef36a57f3b4966?lnk=gst&q=did+rowley+let+the+cat+out+of+the+bag%3F#0aef36a57f3b4966

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly drivel. The driver did not accelerate or hit the brakes before the
head shot. The SS car was maintaining its distance behind the limo. If the
SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown out of the
seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the limo. Not
a good idea.

The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up. Out there in someone's
attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from the
north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of the
head shot. How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?

3 seconds?

Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
the TSBD? Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full
automatic?

[claviger]

There has been much debate on whether Greer came to a full stop, slowed
down, or simply took his foot off the peddle, any of which would cause
Kinney to slow down too. Since the the two cars were only 6 feet apart
Kinney would need to apply pressure on the brake pedal to keep from
ramming the Presidential Limousine.

> If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
> out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
> limo. Not a good idea.

Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
report.

> The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.

The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.

> Out there in someone's
> attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
> the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
> the head shot.

Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
is in any hurry to make it public.

> How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
> grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
> take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
>
> 3 seconds?

2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
can't tell for sure.

> Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
> the TSBD?

The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.

> Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?

No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper
out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
of the official who made this decision?

[claviger]

No, I've already clarified what I meant. It doesn't matter if the family
visited the mortuary or not, as to what the morticians noticed in
preparing the body. Your argument is puerile and picayune.

> > I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
> > a possible open casket lying in state.  The family chose to have a closed
> > casket ceremony instead.  The morticians saw the body up close.  You
> > didn't.
>
> >>> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
> >>> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what.  They also
> >>> applied make-up on the face.  One employee is on the record testifying
> >>> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face.  The make-up guy mentioned
> >>> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>
> >> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

I found a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy who
testified on the record to what he saw. He was there. You weren't. You
have no experience as a mortician. He does. So go blow your horn with
all your hot air.

> > The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body.  They have
> > testified to what they saw.  You were not there to see the body. They
> > were.  End of discussion.
>
> So you would believe whatever a janitor or technician said?

I might, depending on a situation pertaining to their expertise, such as
morticians whose job it is to apply make-up over facial wounds.

> Last chance. Show me these pock marks on the autopsy photos.

Last chance, show me a photo of a sniper on the GK that proves the
"acoustic evidence". No tree trunks or little blobs please. Show me a
photo behind the fence of a sniper with a rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

You made a simple mistake, but you aren't man enough to admit it. You said
the FAMILY saw the body after the morticians had prepared the body. That
is not true, so you are backpedaling.

>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
>>> a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
>>> casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
>>> didn't.
>>
>>>>> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
>>>>> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
>>>>> applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
>>>>> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
>>>>> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>>
>>>> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
>
> I found a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy who
> testified on the record to what he saw. He was there. You weren't. You
> have no experience as a mortician. He does. So go blow your horn with
> all your hot air.
>

Never rely on witnesses. It makes you look like a conspiracy buff.

>>> The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body. They have
>>> testified to what they saw. You were not there to see the body. They
>>> were. End of discussion.
>>
>> So you would believe whatever a janitor or technician said?
>
> I might, depending on a situation pertaining to their expertise, such as
> morticians whose job it is to apply make-up over facial wounds.
>

Nonsense. Never rely on witnesses.

>> Last chance. Show me these pock marks on the autopsy photos.
>

You lost. You can't show me the pock marks on the autopsy photos.

> Last chance, show me a photo of a sniper on the GK that proves the
> "acoustic evidence". No tree trunks or little blobs please. Show me a
> photo behind the fence of a sniper with a rifle.
>

Another phony challenge. I never claimed that the rifle can be seen. All I
said was that there is a person in that spot. You can't even admit that.

I posted a very high resolution scan of that area many times, yet you
claim you can't see anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fine. Show me the brake lights coming on.

>> If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
>> out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
>> limo. Not a good idea.
>
> Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
> report.
>

Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.

>> The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
>
> The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
>

So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents is standing up
and you still claim that has nothing to do with your theory about Hickey
standing up?


Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/mortal_error_bronson.jpg

>> Out there in someone's
>> attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
>> the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
>> the head shot.
>
> Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
> head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
> is in any hurry to make it public.
>

If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it.
Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big
butt and find it.

>> How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
>> grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
>> take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
>>
>> 3 seconds?
>
> 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
> can't tell for sure.
>

We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach
down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot
you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.

>> Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
>> the TSBD?
>
> The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
>

Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he
going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?

>> Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
>
> No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
> It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
> and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper

Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do you
claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is
ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/JFK-M16.gif

> out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
> GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
> SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
> of the official who made this decision?
>

Of course you look for a conspiratorial answer.

>
>
>
>

[homeins...@yahoo.com]

umm,

On Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:35:23 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:

> > in the X-rays.  By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> > wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays.  Again no bullets

> > showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy.  The body
> > of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
> > small puncture wounds in the face.
> >

> > The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
> > penetration through-and-through wounds.  It was a highly stable bullet
> > by design.  If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
> > it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle.  It had ample
> > velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
> > expansion of the wound cavity.  It's length-to-width ratio prevented
> > tumbling.  The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
> > enemy soldiers.  It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm".  For
> > this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
> > this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President.  Not
> > impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
> > wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.
>
> The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
> Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
> up.

connellys back wound was elongated because it tumbled......

[Clubking01]

Th

On Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:08:22 AM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

> > up.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound

The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.

How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally's back wound was elongated because the bullet hit a curved
surface. And it was only elongated to 15 mm. Why was Kennedy's head
wound supposedly elongated to the same 15 mm. Do you claim that bullet
went through someone else first before hitting Kennedy's head?

[claviger]

On Apr 25, 9:25 pm, homeinspecto...@yahoo.com wrote:
> umm,

> connellys back wound was elongated because it tumbled......

Correct. This was proved in Australian field testing experiments where
bullets tumbled every time after passing through the first surrogate
dummy.

[claviger]

Clubking,

> > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>
> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?

So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?

[Anthony Marsh]

You are not allowing for any bunch up.

> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>

5-3/8 inches from WHERE?
In general the back is lower than the neck. Except for one particular
African tribe.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong as always.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where do you get that angle? Show us your proof. And again you are
assuming no deflection.
BTW, don't you remember that the Washington Beltway sniper fired from
the trunk unseen?

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Fine. Show me the brake lights coming on.

Greer claims he never hit the breaks, only took his foot off the
pedal. If true it would still cause SA Kinney, who maintained a tight
6’ gap behind the Limousine, to apply brakes suddenly since he didn’t
see any tail lights come on and realized they were about to ram the
Limousine. This would be enough to throw SA Hickey off balance if he
tried to handle the AR-15 while standing.

> > > If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
> > > out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
> > > limo. Not a good idea.
> > Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
> > report.
> Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.

After all the years studing this case I can’t believe you would ask
this question.

> > > The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
> > The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
> So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents
> is standing up and you still claim that has nothing to do with
> your theory about Hickey standing up?
> Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/mortal_error_bronson.jpg

Is this a trick question or just a dumb question? There were 4 SS
agents standing up on Halfback during the parade. One left his
position and ran to the Limousine. The Bronson film does not show the
backseat. In the last frame there is movement of someone falling
forward. Are you saying SA Hickey never stood up during the parade
down Elm Street?

> > > > Out there in someone's
> > > > attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
> > > > the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
> > > > the head shot.
> > > Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
> > > head shot.  If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
> > > is in any hurry to make it public.
> > If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it.
> Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big
> butt and find it.

What’s holding you back? Stop being so lazy and get to work!

> > > How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
> > > grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
> > > take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
> > > 3 seconds?
> > 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo.  We
> > can't tell for sure.
> We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach
> down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot
> you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.

Go for it.

> > > Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
> > > the TSBD?
> > The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
> Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he
> going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?

How can you tell where his eyes are looking from the backside of his
head?!!

> > > Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
> > No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
> > It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
> > and accurate with very little kick.  It had the range to take the sniper
> Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do
> you claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is
> ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/JFK-M16.gif

That would be a very sad irony.

> > out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
> > GK.  So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
> > SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas?  What changed the mind
> > of the official who made this decision?
> Of course you look for a conspiratorial answer.

It was a policy decision by someone higher up the COC and Rowley was
not happy with that decision. Why would his wishes be overruled and
why would a Cabinet member get involved with this kind of decision?

President Kennedy made the final choice to adopt the AR-15 for the
military, and it would also be useful to the SS because of its light
weight and short barrel. It could be set on semi-auto or full-auto.
If this weapon was not involved with the shooting in Dealey Plaza why
would anyone overrule the Director of the SS and ban it from further
use? This weapon was a big step forward in technology so why prevent
them from using the best available technology in protecting both the
POTUS and LOTFW? Only a deadly accident with this weapon would
justify that decision.

[Clubking01]

Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.

Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.

All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.

JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.

A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.

I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/27/2012 8:19 AM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> Fine. Show me the brake lights coming on.
> Greer claims he never hit the breaks, only took his foot off the
> pedal. If true it would still cause SA Kinney, who maintained a tight

Well, I don't think Greer hit the brakes and the photographic evidence
indicates that he didn't. But where do you see him saying all he did was
take his foot off the pedal? Please cite and quote that for me. But of
course you can't because you are just making up crap again. Your game is
to pretend that I said something which I never said and then pretend to
correct me. Only you are just saying the same thing I have said thousands
of times.

> 6? gap behind the Limousine, to apply brakes suddenly since he didn?t

> see any tail lights come on and realized they were about to ram the
> Limousine. This would be enough to throw SA Hickey off balance if he
> tried to handle the AR-15 while standing.
>

Hickey was not standing up then. The Bronson film makes that clear.

>>>> If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
>>>> out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
>>>> limo. Not a good idea.
>>> Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
>>> report.
>> Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.

> After all the years studing this case I can?t believe you would ask
> this question.
>

This sounds like a Harris argument. "There can no longer be any doubt..."
You know that the Hickey shot has been thoroughly debunked and you are the
only being in this universe who believes it.

>>>> The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
>>> The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
>> So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents
>> is standing up and you still claim that has nothing to do with
>> your theory about Hickey standing up?
>> Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/mortal_error_bronson.jpg
> Is this a trick question or just a dumb question? There were 4 SS
> agents standing up on Halfback during the parade. One left his
> position and ran to the Limousine. The Bronson film does not show the
> backseat. In the last frame there is movement of someone falling
> forward. Are you saying SA Hickey never stood up during the parade
> down Elm Street?
>

Yes, Hickey never stood up BEFORE the head shot.
There is not movement in the last frame of someone falling forward and
as usual you contradict yourself because in the previous sentence you
claimed that the Bronson film does not even show Hickey.

>>>>> Out there in someone's
>>>>> attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
>>>>> the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
>>>>> the head shot.
>>>> Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
>>>> head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
>>>> is in any hurry to make it public.
>>> If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it.
>> Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big
>> butt and find it.

> What?s holding you back? Stop being so lazy and get to work!

>
>>>> How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
>>>> grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
>>>> take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
>>>> 3 seconds?
>>> 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
>>> can't tell for sure.
>> We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach
>> down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot
>> you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.
> Go for it.
>

It's not my damn theory.

>>>> Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
>>>> the TSBD?
>>> The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
>> Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he
>> going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?
> How can you tell where his eyes are looking from the backside of his
> head?!!
>

The angle of his head.

>>>> Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
>>> No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
>>> It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
>>> and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper
>> Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do
>> you claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is
>> ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/JFK-M16.gif
> That would be a very sad irony.
>

The AR-15 was specifically designed for the South Vietnamese troops.

>>> out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
>>> GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
>>> SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
>>> of the official who made this decision?
>> Of course you look for a conspiratorial answer.
> It was a policy decision by someone higher up the COC and Rowley was
> not happy with that decision. Why would his wishes be overruled and
> why would a Cabinet member get involved with this kind of decision?
>

You have an overactive imagination.

> President Kennedy made the final choice to adopt the AR-15 for the
> military, and it would also be useful to the SS because of its light
> weight and short barrel. It could be set on semi-auto or full-auto.
> If this weapon was not involved with the shooting in Dealey Plaza why
> would anyone overrule the Director of the SS and ban it from further
> use? This weapon was a big step forward in technology so why prevent

You don't know any of that to be true. You just assume it to make it
justify your pet theory.

> them from using the best available technology in protecting both the
> POTUS and LOTFW? Only a deadly accident with this weapon would
> justify that decision.
>

Nonsense. If any decision was made there should be a memo. Find the memo.

>
>
>
>

[bigdog]

For reasons I will never understand, those arguing the back wound was
lower than the throat wound seem to think that the top of the collar in
the back of a man's shirt is at the same level as it is in the front of
the shirt. Of course this is ridiculous, but it's the part of the equation
the CTs seem to always leave out. The bullet exited at the level of the
top button, nicking the knot in JFK's tie. That exit point is lower than
the entrance point. The base of a man's neck is lower in the front than it
is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base
of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on
a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward
for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was
slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad
back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing
the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of
that pressure.

We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday
and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the
throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to
front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.

1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that
were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no
bullets in the body?

2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward
trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street
level. Where would you like to put that shooter?

3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward
trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is
explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet
have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the
windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the
ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it
were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the
overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of
JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet?
If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield
in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.

4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please
explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could
have ended up.

If you reject the WC explaination that the bullet went through JFK on a
downward back-to-front trajectory, these are the choices you are left
with. So which one are you going with, Clubking01?

[Clubking01]

So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 % decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie knot in the front.

But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal neck wound. That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged that the back wound was below the front wound. So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in such a manner.

Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation. I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work. The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.

Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD. I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and, by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you MAY have a point there, but it is so hard to tell because
you are so inarticulate.

> is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base
> of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on

That is heresy. You are talking kooky conspiracy talk. The WC has the
bullet entering in the NECK, above the top of the shoulder.

> a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward
> for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was

The WC did not need JFK to lean abnormally forward because they simply
lied and move the wound up a couple of inches. The HSCA could not lie
about the location so they had to lie about JFK's position and said he
was leaning abnormally forward. Their problem was that they were stuck
with frame 190 for their SBT due to the acoustical evidence, and any
idiot (except a WC defender) can see for themselves that JFK was not
leaning forward by 18 degrees at frame 190.
That's why I have suggested that the WC defenders pick a SBT frame when
both men are hidden behind the sign and they can claim that JFK was
leaning forward by 25 degrees if they want and no one can disprove them.

> slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad
> back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing
> the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of
> that pressure.
>

Silly. You forget that he was wearing a back brace.

> We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday
> and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the

Nah, you don't want to quibble. You want to dictate.

> throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to
> front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.
>
> 1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that
> were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no
> bullets in the body?
>

Is this a contest to see how simplistic you can get? Connally had an
entrance wound in his thigh. Why were no there no bullets found in his
body? There was no corresponding exit wound.

> 2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward
> trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street
> level. Where would you like to put that shooter?
>

Silly. You are assuming the bullet has to stay on the same trajectory.
Bullets are often deflected when they hit bone. Humes did not know so
the WC did not know that the bullet hit the T-1 vertebra.

> 3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward
> trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is
> explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet

There are lots of possible angles which COULD hit the throat.
But the damage inside the body shows that it was an exit wound.

> have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the
> windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the
> ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it

The windshield is not in the way for all angles, just some.
And you overlooked the kook theory that there was a hole in the
windshield caused by a shot from the front.

> were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the
> overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of
> JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet?
> If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield
> in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.
>

In fact to clear the windshield from the overpass the rifle would have
to be about 16 feet in the air.

> 4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please
> explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could
> have ended up.
>

4. Explain exactly where the WC's missed shot went and prove it.
5. Explain what hit the curb near Tague and prove it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/27/2012 1:01 PM, Clubking01 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> Clubking,
>>
>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>>
>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
>
> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
>

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Baden%5B1%5D.jpg

The problem was that the HSCA was stuck with frame 190 from the acoustical
evidence. Now if they had lined up the head shot with the grassy knoll
shot that would move their SBT up to Z-210 and they might get away with
their deception.

[Anthony Marsh]

When was JFK slightly hunched? Out at Love Field?
When did the bullet hit his back? What frame? If you can pick a frame
when he is behind the sign you can claim JFK was standing on his head.

[claviger]

Clubking,

> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
> knot in the front.

Actually quite a bit above.

> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
> neck wound.

Guess again. Basic human anatomy.

> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
> that the back wound was below the front wound.

Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
position.

> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
> such a manner.

JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.

> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.

You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
mechanically inclined CT.

> The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.

Not ridiculous to experienced hunters. They've seen it happen with
unjacketed hunting bullets.

> Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald
> used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD.
> I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what
> I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and,
> by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.

So was the shooter inside the trunk or at street level?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/29/2012 8:31 PM, claviger wrote:
> Clubking,
>
>> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
>> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
>> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
>> knot in the front.
> Actually quite a bit above.
>

Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot.
Otherwise you are just guessing.

>> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
>> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
>> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
>> neck wound.
> Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
>
>> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
>> that the back wound was below the front wound.
> Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
> position.
>
>> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
>> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
>> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
>> such a manner.
> JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
>

All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?

>> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
>> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
>> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.
> You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
> options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
> device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
> shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
> mechanically inclined CT.
>

The Fallacy of False Alternatives.

[claviger]

On Apr 30, 8:50 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2012 8:31 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Clubking,
>
> >> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
> >> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
> >> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
> >> knot in the front.
> > Actually quite a bit above.
>
> Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot.
> Otherwise you are just guessing.

Guessing?
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-8242-C.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a5/Photo-jfkl-02_0045-C401-2-63.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/af/Photo-jfkl-02_0031-KN-18062.jpg
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-ireland-visit.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-celebs-visit.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-campaign-swing.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-anticrime-bills.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-space-capsule.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-press-conference.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-asia-comments.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/limo2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/snapshot.htm
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/explorer/jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/#/reenacting-a-national-tragedy_40401_600x450.jpg
http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57266.jpg.htm
http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57284.png.htm
http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57251.jpg.htm

> >> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
> >> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
> >> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
> >> neck wound.
> > Guess again.  Basic human anatomy.
>
> >> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
> >> that the back wound was below the front wound.
> > Only in the anatomical position.  JFK was not sitting in that
> > position.
>
> >> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
> >> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
> >> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
> >> such a manner.
> > JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
>
> All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?

One sketch for the HSCA assumes he was leaning over at the time of the
second shot. Maybe, but not necessary for the SBT to be correct.

> >> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
> >> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
> >> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.
> > You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target.  Your
> > options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
> > device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
> > shot.  Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
> > mechanically inclined CT.
>
> The Fallacy of False Alternatives.

The Reality of Only Alternatives.

[Clubking01]

Thanks Tony, for re-posting the Baden pic

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/30/2012 7:39 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Apr 30, 8:50 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2012 8:31 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Clubking,
>>

>>>> So let?s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %

>>>> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
>>>> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
>>>> knot in the front.
>>> Actually quite a bit above.
>>
>> Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot.
>> Otherwise you are just guessing.
>
> Guessing?
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-8242-C.jpg
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a5/Photo-jfkl-02_0045-C401-2-63.jpg
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/af/Photo-jfkl-02_0031-KN-18062.jpg
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-ireland-visit.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-celebs-visit.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-campaign-swing.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-anticrime-bills.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-space-capsule.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-press-conference.htm
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/president-asia-comments.htm
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/limo2.jpg
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/snapshot.htm
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/explorer/jfk-the-lost-bullet-pictures/#/reenacting-a-national-tragedy_40401_600x450.jpg
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57266.jpg.htm
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57284.png.htm
> http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57251.jpg.htm
>

Excuse me? You claim that you can see JFK being shot in the back during
each of those photos? That's a groundbreaking revelation. That he was shot
in the back so many times and no one reported it. You can't even pick a
frame and show me JFK at that frame.

>
>>>> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
>>>> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
>>>> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
>>>> neck wound.
>>> Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
>>
>>>> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
>>>> that the back wound was below the front wound.
>>> Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
>>> position.
>>
>>>> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
>>>> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
>>>> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
>>>> such a manner.
>>> JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
>>
>> All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?
>
> One sketch for the HSCA assumes he was leaning over at the time of the
> second shot. Maybe, but not necessary for the SBT to be correct.
>

One sketch? One sketch shows several POSSIBLE positions.
Did Canning show JFK leaning over by 18 degrees?
Baden tried to demonstrate what that would look like.
But his demonstration did not look anything like frame 190 which is what
the HSCA was stuck with. Now if they could only have been able to pick a
frame between 210 and 224 they might have a chance.

>>>> Second, do not try to trap me into some ?either/ or? situation.

>>>> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my

>>>> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn?t work.